North vs. South

Here are my estimates

Southern hemisphere (60°W - 70°W)

Country	Area(sq. mi)
---------------------------------
Brazil/2	1,643,235
Bolivia	424,160
Paraquay/2	78,525
Argentina	1,072,067
---------------------------------
Total:	3,217,987

Northern hemisphere (15°E - 25°E)

Country	Area(sq. mi)
---------------------------------
Sweden	173,800
Poland	120,725
Czech Republic	30,440
Austria/2	16,188
Hungary	35,913
Romania/2	45,850
Slovenia/2	7,820
Croatia	21,830
Bosnia Herzegovina	19,741
Serbia & Montenegro	26,940
Italy/3	38,767
Albania	11,110
Macedonia	9,925
Bulgaria/2	42,820
Greece	50,960
Libya	679,535
Chad	495,750
Central African Republic	241,310
---------------------------------
Total:	2,069,424

RATIO = 1.555

Source: Webster's new encyclopedic dictionary, 1995

Classic PWNAGE! 

Thus we see on reliable evidence that the further we go south the greater the distance round the world.

But you can only go south if the Earth is round.

Don't start that again. Yes you can.

Concentrate on the pwnage...

Isn't south on FE 'rimward' or something? FAQ is my source.

Isn't south on FE 'rimward' or something? FAQ is my source.

If 'rimward' means toward the edge of the earth, than yes.

Yea, that's my point. Because "rimwards" could actually be in any direction, you will always end up on a edge if you walk long enough. You should define "south" in a FET as the shortest distance to the edge of the disc.

Or the opposite of North, which is equivalent.

Tom is silent...

Quote

Tom. STOP copy-pasting. Your calculations were shown incorrect in another thread.

There's nothing incorrect about those calculations. The calculations are absolutely correct. The  remarks in that previous thread stem from an inability of the reader to calculate the circumference of the earth based on a difference of longitude. It's simple math, really. The earth - flat or round - will have a circumference of 360^o at every latitude. If we know what the quoted distance is between the Cape of Good Hope and Melbourne we can compute that difference of 126^o longitude between the two locations into 360^o and come up with a figure for the circumference.

Simple as that.

Please explain what you mean by a circumference of 360^o. Degrees is a unit which has no physical length...

Because "rimwards" could actually be in any direction,

No, it would only be south...

Rimwards is the opposite of moving towards the North Pole. Therefore, it is south.

What about if you're at the rim, and you pick a point nearby on the rim to walk to?  Wouldn't that be walking 'rimwards' but not away from the North Pole?

Actually, it would be east or west. 

I think we all understand the intended direction of rimwards (opposite to north towards the rim of the earth), so let's stop the chatter about technicalities which is pointless beyond the regular nonsense.

Quote from: Gin on May 13, 2007, 04:25:17 PM

(7637/126)*360 = 21,820 miles

Simple as that.

Wow Gin, that's a terrible calculation there. You forgot that this isn't a straight line we're talking about, but a curve.  A curve is always longer than a straight line. You'll need to compute arcs of a circle if you wish to correctly find the figure. In your equation you will need to include pi - the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle.

On the notion of curves and straight lines and "going straight", please see my thread:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=15758.0

I would like some FE'ERS to respond...

Quote

Tom. STOP copy-pasting. Your calculations were shown incorrect in another thread.

There's nothing incorrect about those calculations. The calculations are absolutely correct. The  remarks in that previous thread stem from an inability of the reader to calculate the circumference of the earth based on a difference of longitude. It's simple math, really. The earth - flat or round - will have a circumference of 360^o at every latitude. If we know what the quoted distance is between the Cape of Good Hope and Melbourne we can compute that difference of 126^o longitude between the two locations into 360^o and come up with a figure for the circumference.

Simple as that.

Not to drag out the point, but that only works on a flat model actually. Think about it for a sec.  A globe or sphere would be in cross-sections using your 360 degree method, therefore tapering into smaller and smaller circumferences as you approached the poles. * It would work either way - N/S or E/W sections.

That's my only point. I'm leaving it at that.


* Edited to add the either / or. I've noticed a tendency to comment on specifics in here so I added it in to be sure. 

There's nothing incorrect about the calculations. The calculations are absolutely correct.

Captain Redundant to the rescue! To the rescue!